http://prospect.org/topic/culture
enThe Evolving Politics of Punk in the Nation's Capitalhttp://prospect.org/article/evolving-politics-punk-nations-capital
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <h4><strong><em>Photos by <a href="http://www.mmaguirephoto.com">Mike Maguire</a></em></strong></h4>
<p><span class="dropcap">O</span>ne Thursday evening in December, beyond the signs for Microsoft Word tutorials and panel discussions on language immersion, a popular local punk band named Priests delivered a blazing performance in the basement of Washington, D.C.’s Martin Luther King Jr. public library.</p></div></div></div>Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:03:36 +0000222720 at http://prospect.orgAmanda TeuscherThe U.S. Won the World Cup—Can We Take Women's Sports Seriously Now?http://prospect.org/blog/tapped/us-won-world-cup%E2%80%94can-we-take-womens-sports-seriously-now
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <h5><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.538em;">On Sunday night—surely you know by now—the United States Women’s National Team won the World Cup with a high-scoring 5–2 victory over Japan.</span></h5>
<p>What has gotten just as much attention as the match itself—and rightfully so—is the pay disparity between men and women’s sports. The U.S. Women’s Team took home $2 million for their third World Cup victory. Last year, the German team won the Men’s World Cup and took home $35 million, while the U.S. men took home $8 million after being eliminated in the first round of the tournament. The total payout for women in 2015 was $15 million. For the men in 2014, it was <a href="http://www.politico.eu/article/world-cup-women-pay-gap-gender-equality/">$576 million</a>.</p>
<p>Obviously, FIFA, world soccer’s governing body, has ethics in inverse proportion to its hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue—just imagine the NFL operating in multiple countries, with Bond villains at the helm. And FIFA President Sepp Blatter, who last month announced his resignation following corruption investigations, once suggested female players should wear <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jan/16/football.gender">“tighter shorts”</a> to increase popularity (and incorrectly said that women play with a lighter ball). In 2014, a group of international players sued FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association for <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/07/womens-soccer-world-cup-fifa-lawsuit/397592/">gender discrimination</a> after it was announced that the 2015 tournament would be played on artificial turf instead of real grass. Any moves toward making international soccer more equitable will clearly not be coming from inside FIFA.</p>
<p>But that of course does not mean <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=qr6ar3xJL_Q">criticism of FIFA</a> should cease; nor does it mean we should ignore the very real inequality in U.S. sports. The National Women’s Soccer League’s minimum salary is $6,000, with salary caps for entire teams at only $200,000. In contrast, the MLS minimum is now $60,000. Writing in <em>The Atlantic</em> last month, Maggie Mertens made a compelling argument that support for women’s soccer, or lack thereof, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/06/womens-soccer-is-a-feminist-issue/394865/">is a feminist issue</a>.</p>
<p>Sports command enormous cultural and capitalist importance, and when players are compensated one-tenth as much as others for the exact same work simply because of their gender, we cannot pretend sports are frivolous, or that they are anything less than a deeply unequal workplace. And if <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/02/countries-who-treat-their-women-equally-have-better-womens-soccer-teams/">it weren’t for feminist achievements like Title IX</a>, it is doubtful that the Americans would be as dominant on the world stage.</p>
<p>But lack of interest in women’s sports is still the reason given for lack of pay equity—and for lack of coverage. And what follows this excuse is a shrug of shoulders at what appears to be circular problem: If fans were more interested in women’s sports, there would be more coverage; if there were more coverage, fans would be more interested. But I don’t buy it.</p>
<p>Sure, the bars were less crowded in D.C. than they were last summer for the men’s World Cup. But I was heartened by the sight of so many <a href="http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2015/06/30/usa-germany-goals-fan-reaction-video-carli-lloyd">men in U.S. jerseys at watch parties</a>, and of male friends leaping from chairs to throw arms up after a goal. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/06/most-watched-us-soccer-game_n_7736438.html">More than 25 million viewers tuned in</a> on Sunday night—more than any soccer match (men or women) in U.S. history, and more than the recent NBA Finals. As Dave Zirin points out in <em>The Nation</em>, <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/why-im-done-defending-womens-sports/">people are watching women’s sports</a> (when they can), and enjoying it. It is the broadcasters clinging to the sexist idea that no one does—or should—care about female athletes that has, <a href="http://com.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/06/05/2167479515588761.full.pdf+html">as one 25-year study found</a>, kept attention to women’s sports averaging around just 5 percent of total coverage. Just as it is the fault of FIFA and women’s leagues <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/06/neymar-marta-world-cup-brazil/394856/">all over the world</a> that don’t pay their players fairly, it is also the fault of sports journalists and publications that choose to ignore those athletes, or, as that same study notes, offer coverage with a distinct lack of excitement. Not everything has to have the same intensity as <a href="http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/listen-to-all-five-u-s-goals-as-called-by-telemundos-a-1715908057">Andrés Cantor’s “<em>Gol!</em>” calls</a>, but just imagine if women's sports got half the production value of the NBA draft.</p>
<p>Of course, there is one point that I haven’t yet addressed, and that is that the style of play is very different between <a href="http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs1/1326635_o.gif">men</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/VICESports/status/616027083714629632">women’s</a> soccer. On this, I will concede.</p>
<p> </p>
</div></div></div>Wed, 08 Jul 2015 14:19:27 +0000222621 at http://prospect.orgAmanda TeuscherGawker Changed the Internet. Can It Change Workplace Organizing?http://prospect.org/article/gawker-changed-internet-can-it-change-workplace-organizing
<div class="field field-name-field-feature-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/feature_teaser/public/screen_shot_2015-05-28_at_4.37.29_pm_0.png?itok=tAooTWQY" width="220" height="165" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photo-caption field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Scott Beale / Laughing Squid</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Scott Beale / Laughing Squid Gawker Media offices in New York City. A round 100 editorial staffers will vote next week on whether to unionize the workplace behind Gawker.com. The secret online vote, set for June 3, is a first among digital native outlets like Gawker that have dramatically recast the world of online journalism in recent years. The decision marks a new chapter for the company, and for a media landscape still grappling with the complex realities of a digital future. The union drive at Gawker began as you might expect: loudly. Six weeks ago senior writer Hamilton Nolan announced at Gawker.com that the editorial staff was in the early stages of organizing a union with the Writers Guild of America, East. The bold announcement sent shockwaves throughout the Internet for a number of reasons—primarily because it involved Gawker and people like Gawker. It also turned on its head the traditional organizing strategy of not going public until the organizing is near completion...</div></div></div>Thu, 28 May 2015 21:02:06 +0000222325 at http://prospect.orgJustin MillerIt's All About the Moneyhttp://prospect.org/article/its-all-about-money
<div class="field field-name-field-feature-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/feature_teaser/public/ap546585766487_0.jpg?itok=GclVv02E" width="220" height="130" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photo-caption field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">AP Photo/Orlin Wagner</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">AP Photo/Orlin Wagner A student in line for his diploma wears a cap decorated with the cost of his education during graduation ceremonies at the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho, May 16, 2015. T his is a pivotal moment in American higher education—a crisis, you might say, if the term hadn’t been debased by overuse. The criticisms come from every corner and the bill of particulars is lengthy. The financial cost gets most of the attention. Since 1980, tuition has more than doubled at private universities and tripled at public institutions. Students have accumulated more than $1.2 trillion in debt, $300 million more than what Americans owe credit card companies. For-profit schools enroll about an eighth of all college students, many of whom end up saddled with mountainous debts and worthless degrees. Students from poor families have it especially rough. Half of all 25-year-olds from well-off families, but just a tenth of all 25-year-olds from poor families, have a bachelor’s degree...</div></div></div>Thu, 21 May 2015 18:17:06 +0000222302 at http://prospect.orgDavid L. KirpHow the Bankers Destroyed the Dreamhttp://prospect.org/article/how-bankers-destroyed-dream
<div class="field field-name-field-feature-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/feature_teaser/public/ap090528041388_0.jpg?itok=gjRyJ2dq" width="220" height="140" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photo-caption field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, file</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">(AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, file) In this May 28, 2009 file photo, a foreclosed home is shown in Mountain View, Calif. More than 13 percent of American homeowners with a mortgage are either behind on their payments or in foreclosure as the recession throws more people out of work, the Mortgage Bankers Association said Thursday, Aug. 20, 2009. Other People's Houses: How Decades of Bailouts, Captive Regulators, and Toxic Bankers Made Home Mortgages a Thrilling Business By Jennifer Taub 416 pp. Yale University Press $30 I n the early 2000s, the media regularly turned to David Lereah, chief economist for the National Association of Realtors. He provided consistently optimistic predictions about rising housing prices and labeled those who disagreed a “Chicken Little.” In 2006, at the peak of the housing bubble, he published a book entitled Why the Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust—And How You Can Profit from It . Within a year, the housing bubble popped. Between 2006 and 2012, housing prices...</div></div></div>Fri, 15 May 2015 16:22:09 +0000222276 at http://prospect.orgPeter DreierPiety and Politics in Americahttp://prospect.org/article/piety-and-politics-america
<div class="field field-name-field-feature-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/feature_teaser/public/ap500714015_0.jpg?itok=dGv3KDNA" width="220" height="168" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photo-caption field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">AP Photo</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">AP Photo Evangelist Billy Graham, second from right, kneels in prayer on the White House Lawn July 14,1950 with three friends, asking divine aid for President Truman in his handling of the Korean crisis. Graham had just finished a meeting with the President. With him are, left to right, Jerry Beavan, Clifford Barrows and Grady Wilson. This book review appears in the Spring 2015 issue of The American Prospect magazine. Subscribe here . Celebrate our 25th Anniversary with us by clicking here for a free download of this special issue . One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America By Kevin M. Kruse 384 pp. Basic Books $29.99 The Religion of Democracy: Seven Liberals and the American Moral Tradition By Amy Kittelstrom 448 pp. Penguin Press $32.95 W hen I speak on college campuses and tell students that the United States Constitution makes no mention of God, at least half of the audience members invariably shake their heads in disbelief. It usually turns out that...</div></div></div>Fri, 15 May 2015 04:57:34 +0000222273 at http://prospect.orgSusan JacobyThe Real Story of the American Familyhttp://prospect.org/article/real-story-american-family
<div class="field field-name-field-feature-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/feature_teaser/public/screen_shot_2015-05-13_at_5.55.20_pm_0.png?itok=6Nx4Lz05" width="220" height="163" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photo-caption field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">CSA Plastock/iStock</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">CSA Plastock/iStock This book review appears in the Spring 2015 issue of The American Prospect magazine. Subscribe here . Celebrate our 25th Anniversary with us by clicking here for a free download of this special issue . L abor's Love Lost: The Rise and Fall of the Working-Class Family in America By Andrew J. Cherlin 272 pp. Russell Sage Foundation $35 Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis By Robert D. Putnam 400 pp. Berrett-Koehler Publishers $28 D uring the culture wars of the 1970s and 1980s, conservative crusaders worried about threats to “traditional” families stemming from both the top and the bottom of the social ladder. In the name of “family values,” they denounced educated elites for denigrating marriage, endorsing premarital sex and cohabitation, and refusing to get judgmental about divorce and unwed motherhood. The “do-your-own-thing” individualism of such people, they claimed, was bad enough for spoiled middle-class children, but threatened disaster when it seeped down...</div></div></div>Thu, 14 May 2015 04:05:15 +0000222269 at http://prospect.orgStephanie CoontzShould We Relitigate the Iraq War in the 2016 Campaign? You Bet We Shouldhttp://prospect.org/article/should-we-relitigate-iraq-war-2016-campaign-you-bet-we-should
<div class="field field-name-field-feature-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/feature_teaser/public/screen_shot_2015-05-11_at_12.51.21_am_1.png?itok=0u9dOuna" width="220" height="142" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photo-caption field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">(Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images News)</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">View image | gettyimages.com I f all goes well, in the 2016 campaign we'll be rehashing the arguments we had about the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003. You may be thinking, "Jeez, do we really have to go through that again?" But we do—in fact, we must. If we're going to make sense of where the next president is going to take the United States on foreign policy, there are few more important discussions to have. On Sunday, Fox News posted an excerpt of an interview Megyn Kelly did with Jeb Bush in which she asked him whether he too would have invaded Iraq, and here's how that went : Kelly : Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion? Bush : I would have, and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody, and so would have almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got. Kelly : You don't think it was a mistake? Bush : In retrospect, the intelligence that everybody saw, that the world saw, not just the United States, was faulty. And in...</div></div></div>Mon, 11 May 2015 05:21:05 +0000222254 at http://prospect.orgPaul WaldmanShould We Relitigate the Iraq War in the 2016 Campaign? You Bet We Shouldhttp://prospect.org/waldman/should-we-relitigate-iraq-war-2016-campaign-you-bet-we-should
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <div class="getty embed image" style="background-color:#fff;display:inline-block;font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;color:#a7a7a7;font-size:11px;width:100%;max-width:594px;">
<div style="overflow:hidden;position:relative;height:0;padding:67.845118% 0 0 0;width:100%;">
<iframe frameborder="0" height="403" scrolling="no" src="//embed.gettyimages.com/embed/2907723?et=CquS7cvUQgldfrdo-HQRQg&amp;viewMoreLink=on&amp;sig=TRRTxs36sUrsE0X3Of93B6Xp0Hw9VB184JTxreVXk2U=&amp;caption=true" style="display:inline-block;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;" width="594"></iframe></div>
<p style="margin:0;"> </p>
<div style="padding:0;margin:0 0 0 10px;text-align:left;"><a href="http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/2907723" style="color:#a7a7a7;text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal !important;border:none;display:inline-block;" target="_blank">View image</a> | <a href="http://www.gettyimages.com" style="color:#a7a7a7;text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal !important;border:none;display:inline-block;" target="_blank">gettyimages.com</a></div>
</div>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-7e6f81e2-4084-04d3-7845-a83102cc2474">If all goes well, in the 2016 campaign we'll be rehashing the arguments we had about the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003. You may be thinking, "Jeez, do we really have to go through that again?" But we do—in fact, we must. If we're going to make sense of where the next president is going to take the United States on foreign policy, there are few more important discussions to have.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-7e6f81e2-4084-04d3-7845-a83102cc2474">On Sunday, Fox News posted an excerpt of an interview Megyn Kelly did with Jeb Bush in which she asked him whether he too would have invaded Iraq, and </span><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/10/exclusive-jeb-bush-says-hillary-clinton-would-have-backed-iraq-invasion/">here's how that went</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p dir="ltr"><strong>Kelly</strong>: Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?</p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong><span id="docs-internal-guid-7e6f81e2-4084-04d3-7845-a83102cc2474">Bush</span></strong>: I would have, and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody, and so would have almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong><span id="docs-internal-guid-7e6f81e2-4084-04d3-7845-a83102cc2474">Kelly</span></strong>: You don't think it was a mistake?</p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong><span id="docs-internal-guid-7e6f81e2-4084-04d3-7845-a83102cc2474">Bush</span></strong>: In retrospect, the intelligence that everybody saw, that the world saw, not just the United States, was faulty. And in retrospect, once we invaded and took out Saddam Hussein, we didn't focus on security first, and the Iraqis, in this incredibly insecure environment turned on the United States military because there was no security for themselves and their families. By the way, guess who thinks that those mistakes took place, as well? George W. Bush. So, news flash to the world, if they're trying to find places where there's big space between me and my brother, this might not be one of those.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-7e6f81e2-4084-04d3-7845-a83102cc2474">While the full interview airs tonight so we don't yet know whether Kelly followed up to clarify, in this excerpt Jeb Bush deftly answers not the question Kelly asked him but a slightly different question, one that lets him rope in Hillary Clinton and get himself off the hook. While she asked him whether he would have authorized the invasion </span><em>knowing what we know now</em>, he answered as if she had asked whether he would have authorized the invasion believing what many believed then. For the record, there were plenty of people at the time who objected to the invasion, so it's utterly false to say "almost everybody" supported it, and while Hillary Clinton did indeed vote for the war, she wouldn't say she would have invaded knowing what we know now.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-7e6f81e2-4084-04d3-7845-a83102cc2474">Bush's answer may be evasive, but it's understandable—after all, it's not like he's going to say, "Yes, the whole thing was a catastrophe and we never should have done it." As of now, Rand Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate who has </span><a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/240201-rand-paul-ousting-saddam-was-a-mistake">said</a> that the war was a mistake.</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">But the question isn't so much whether a candidate will admit what a disaster Iraq was, but what they've learned from the experience. How do they view the extraordinary propaganda campaign the Bush administration launched to convince Americans to get behind the war? Does that make them want to be careful about how they argue for their policy choices? Did Iraq change their perspective on American military action, particularly in the Middle East? What light does it shed on the reception the American military is likely to get the next time we invade someplace? What does it teach us about power vacuums and the challenges of nation-building? How does it inform the candidate's thinking on the prospect of military action in Syria and Iran specifically? Given the boatload of unintended consequences Iraq unleashed, how would he or she, as president, go about making decisions on complex issues that are freighted with uncertainty?</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-7e6f81e2-4084-04d3-7845-a83102cc2474">I would love to know how Jeb Bush would answer those questions, whether he'll say that the invasion was a mistake or not. The same goes for his primary opponents. But if what we've seen so far is any indication, we aren't likely to get a whole lot of thoughtful foreign policy discussion from them. This weekend the non-Bush candidates were in Greenville for the South Carolina Freedom Summit, where they walked on stage and beat their chests while advocating for a foreign policy inevitably described by the press as "</span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/us/politics/republican-hopefuls-in-south-carolina-push-a-muscular-foreign-policy.html">muscular</a>." Scott Walker apparently thrilled the crowd by telling them that terrorists are coming to America, and "I want a leader who is willing to take the fight to them before they take the fight to us." But the real good stuff came from <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-09/marco-rubio-outlines-a-liam-neeson-foreign-policy-in-south-carolina">Marco Rubio</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p dir="ltr">"On our strategy on global jihadists and terrorists, I refer them to the movie <em>Taken</em>. Have you seen the movie <em>Taken</em>? Liam Neeson. He had a line, and this is what our strategy should be: 'We will look for you, we will find you, and we will kill you.'"</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-7e6f81e2-4084-04d3-7845-a83102cc2474">Ah, the inspiringly sophisticated foreign policy thinking of the GOP candidate. I'm old enough to remember when we had another president who liked to sound like a movie-star tough guy. "There's an old poster out West, as I recall," he </span><a href="https://youtu.be/YFgn4EaCGQA">said</a> when asked about Osama bin Laden, "that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" You'll recall that it was a different president who was in charge when bin Laden was found. "There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there," he <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bring-em-on-fetches-trouble/">said</a> about Iraqi insurgents early on in the war. "My answer is, bring 'em on." They came, and thousands of American servicemembers were killed in the ensuing fighting. But George W. Bush was praised at the time for his "moral clarity."</p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-7e6f81e2-4084-04d3-7845-a83102cc2474">We shouldn't forget Hillary Clinton—I doubt she wants to talk much about Iraq, since she supported the war at the time (which was one of the biggest reasons she lost to Barack Obama in 2008). She should explain how the the Iraq War will inform her thinking about the foreign policy challenges the next president is likely to face. But twelve years after the war started, we're back in Iraq (albeit with boots hovering in midair). Large swaths of the country have been taken over by a terrorist group that emerged out of the war's chaos. And the glorious flowering of freedom and democracy across the region that George W. Bush promised hasn't come to pass. </span></p>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-7e6f81e2-4084-04d3-7845-a83102cc2474">So there's a basic question the Republican candidates should answer: Is there </span><em>anything</em> they learned from the Iraq War? Anything at all?</p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 11 May 2015 04:00:48 +0000222253 at http://prospect.orgPaul WaldmanPhoto of the Day, Long Time Ago In a Galaxy Far, Far Away Editionhttp://prospect.org/waldman/photo-day-long-time-ago-galaxy-far-far-away-edition
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <div class="image-full-width"><img alt="" class="media-image" height="427" width="640" src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/star_wars_cookies.jpg?itok=LCRE_1eC" /></div>
<p><em><small>Flickr/Betsy Weber</small></em></p>
<p>I'm not even going to bother linking to the new trailer for the new <em>Star Wars</em> movie, because it's been out since yesterday, and if you haven't watched it already there's obviously something wrong with you. I'll just give you this picture of cookies.</p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:36:12 +0000222098 at http://prospect.orgPaul Waldman